What we are is often occluded by the question of Who we are. Instructed to become a Who, we rarely are offered the opportunity to explore the What. The What is actually a rather frozen token. It is the purported product of the knowing of distant experts, conveniently deployed to save us precious time in experiential exploration. Such conveniences too often hide a mimetic predator, pretending to be something it is not in order to insure its own survival and elaboration. Commonly these terrain-predators (which are literally ‘ways’ of making and relating conceptual understanding, akin to ‘species’ in animals) actively abhor our potential, and would, by their nature, prefer to see it silenced — and replaced by agents and forms of structure under their general and specific command.


The foundations of our language and modes knowing are directly related to the earliest elements of active problem-solving in our species. If we can clearly glimpse each of these elements in their correct sequence, seeing our cognitive history of origin in the correct order — this activity will unlock knowledge-potentials that will enable us to rescue each other and our world in ways we could not have previously imagined possible.

There are windows inside us that lead directly to our sources, and when we touch these sources together, uniquely, there is no obstacle we cannot rapidly overcome. The key is our agreement, and our heartful pursuit together of the active connection, rather than the tokenized versions we encounter as ‘ready-made’.





Many of our religions, sciences and speculative philosophies are consistently at work ‘making’ things. Almost all of what they create is organized toward implying, asserting, guessing and demanding the shapes we must conform to in terms of how we think and act. Essentially, these are matters of connectivity.

These paragons of ‘knowledge’ have shaped the questions and answers relating to who and what we are as a species, as individuals, and as lifeForms. Most of their output represents human beings as extremely special in terms of Life on Earth — indeed, we are unique in many ways, and we might even be able to reasonably consider ourselves somewhat of an ‘ascended’ species.

In general, we believe ourselves celestially or evolutionarily ennobled— raised up to rule over, measure, and even define reality. But in our feverish focus on our specialness and the stories or justifications we attach to it we are defining ourselves to ourselves. And what we believe to be liberation in these terrains too often equates to its opposite.

Yes, we are unique. But what is it that we are a unique instance of? God in animal, is one common answer. Evolutionary specialization is another. In order to better understand the nature of what makes us special, it is useful to remove this idea entirely, and decide that we’re entirely unspecial.


The models we are offered are arbitrarily constrictive, in ways we need to be able to see clearly before we can actively oppose them. For every ‘gift’ or protection we may accept under the auspices of civilization and its ways of knowing, there is a strange and hidden price. Behind the systems and their champions something is being eaten, digested, and converted to momentum. The something is our humanity, and perhaps specifically our human connectivity.

There is something broken in our models of what we are, and none of our ways of knowing, as a common people, are capable of assembling the antidote. We cannot agree upon the problem due to its great generality of scope and source, and the domains relevant to it are circumscribed because they are the providence of experts instead of common people. Somehow over the last 200 years the power of the statistic — the dominance of models and theories in our lives and experince — has become more important than living eyes, hearts and minds.

Throughout even our recent history, being human has ‘meant’ many different things in different times and circumstances. Much if not most of what we are, outside of being a uniquely charactered instance of a biological template, is a matter of connectivity. Two of the most significant connective momentums we will encounter as animals are language, and its broodmate, culture. These will largely define the character and activity of our conscious and active relation with self, other, and universe. We will believe what we are shown, in general — but we will also teach others to believe similarly, and sustain and elaborate these beliefs at terrible cost to ourselves and often our environment.

As a biological animal, our cognition is not appreciably different from that of animals in general, with the exception of an apparently‘extra’ domain of representational potentials— one in which tokens and connectivities remain in constant arisal and recombinant elaboration. This is a simple matter to set up and complexify via the transports of relation, and biological reflectivity.

Animals have something vaguelu similar to our complexly represntational sentience, but the human version is unique amongst Earth’s inhabitants — or so we presume according to our ‘modern’ perspectives and observations. This peculiar inward domain of reflective integration and simulation offers us the potential to be different from animals. Given the opportunity to explore and embody our potentials, we can reduce the general outcome to two options, and the spectrum between them.

We can become a superAnimal, or we can become an antiAnimal. The nature and character of the selection we actually embody is a result of how our inward and communal gardens are organized, charactered, and elaborated as well as how they are shared amongst us. It is not merely the presence of language, and potentials for culture which magically levitate us above the plain of animalian consciousness. It is also the specializations of our planet as a whole, our environment, and our sentience. Not our brain — but our whole organism, which in point of fact is pretty much solid evolutionary ‘brain’ in many diverse and connective forms.

If the inward potential for symbolic relation is not activated (or perhaps amplified) through enlanguaging and enculturization, we remain essentially animalian in our experience and character. Though we cannot know what would happen to a group of humans who, as a whole, had ‘lost’ languaging entirely — we can imagine that a largely animalian sequence of events and relation would play out — perhaps somewhat like what we might observe amongst a tribe of gorillas. Our records of lost children, or children who we discovered unenlanguaged and largely or completely unsocialized are interesting — but they do not represent a human in this state — they represent an anomaly.

The largest part of what we are is animalian (or perhaps cellular), and this aspect of the animal we are shares an uneasy relationship with a part of us it contains — the semantic animal we become after being introduced to language, and the many refractory mirrors of culture and experience.
What and who we are as human beings and societies largely emerges in the contextual waters of our circumstances and connectivities. Whatever my social and conceptual definition of human, self, or myself may be — the reality it refers to will change considerably in synchrony with my biocognitive status and relations of the moment. Our circumstance is constantly changing — and the characters of these changes create a powerful floating arbiter of relation to any definition of human, self, or collective.

The form of our agreements, and their strength, is a general inspiration for the characters and connectivities our tokens will imply, posit or state — and thus enable us to pursue. When we choose or agree to highlight the circumstance, for example, instead of the subject — we see a radically different picture of relations, value, qualities — and subjects. What was cast off in the positive, is revealed in the negative. Yet something in our habits of rationality resists such inversions. Perhaps the structure of the species of rationality we preserve, elaborate and employ requires this. If this is so, we must examine models that offer both feature-sets for use in overlay or integration. Such a seemingly small gesture could radically magnify what it means to sense, and know.

Definitions will by their nature structurally inform our experience and consciousness of authority of every kind. Any definition implies relations with its sources, or the holophores of which it is a metaphoric child. These implications create pools of authority, and complex methods of authorization and credentialing which function in almost all of us invisibly, and without our permission or understanding. Under one authority, being human requires the torture and execution of others. Change the authority, rescue and nurturence become the orders of the day. The spectrum of embodiments of this principle we suffer and enjoy as a modern human being is startling. If we could watch the human history with symbols and relations, as well as its effects in the world and upon our species in a five-minute flash of information it would be clear that we do not yet know what we are, and our efforts to find out are often precariously poised at the edge of our own erasure, much like those of a rebellious teenager seeking to escape the confines of a cage so general that it cannot quite be defined — for it is, in a sense, in everything.

At the personal level, what we are by definition to ourselves is nebulous, but it has anchors. The nature of these anchors are often clearly revealed during crisis, stress, dreaming, creativity or surprise. In each of these kinds of circumstance, the biocognitive animal we are shifts gears, so to speak. We inhabit the living biocognitive sources of what we are at all times. The pilot of the vehicle changes, as does the flight-path, destination, and inspiration for travel. The general tone of the circumstance will have much to say about who climbs into the inner cockpit, or, if we prefer, who is tending the inner gardens in which we exist to ourselves and find our ability to act in accordance with personal and organismal intention.

If we generalize correctly, we can observe that metaphors and ideas about self are revealed as the true children of their parent-holophores. As children, they will inherit certain identity-characters from the their parents’ properties. Tracing the lineage features and root meaning-forms of our holophores is a practice that allows us to glimpse the sources and events of poetic and real genesis from which any given metaphor most likely arose. This grants us access to the sentient gardens underneath them — and on our world this is equivalent with having access to miraculously powerful cognitive processes and potentials.

As an example, the metaphor ‘human’ asserts the identity of its holophoric progenitors in all its future constructs and systems, communications, activities, cognition, &c. Thus, if we are children of God, God is the holophore within which the child-metaphor of Human exists, and is thus a reflection of. If we are children of Nature, the Earth is the holophore — as an object or system, and as a sentient being or hyperstructure. This could be extended to include perhaps the Solar System, Galaxy, or Universe.

If we are random accretions of a chemical clockwork-game, Science, or perhaps biophysics in particular is the holophore. It is not so much which token we select that defines us to ourselves, but rather which meaning-characters of the parent token are most generously rePresented in the specific form of the child we select. Whatever inheritances we accrue from the precursor become a container for our token, the way a world is a container for an animal.

The holophores we vaguely define and accept by our passive or active agreement will in turn define the quality, liberty, potential and survivability of our real existence as human beings on Earth — and the quality and features of nurturence or predation experienced in our personal and communal lives. The effect of the features of our holophores is beyond the dramatic. Our choices embodied in the accepted holophores for reality are the most significant choices human beings can make — as individuals, groups of any size, and a species. If we believe in the potentials of liberty, knowledge, understanding and unity, we must not fail to locate their sources. We must cease in our habits of reference to tokenized mimicry.

Any of our holophores that cognitively enstage the unityBeing, Sentience, and Organism vs Matter, and Time are the most important roots of our symbolic cognitive potentials and experience. We will make fewer errors with these holophores if their definitions follow their sources rather than merely creating tokens or codicils about it. These holophores must remain organic and experientially connected to their sources.

When they don’t, a cognitively draconic feature of our connectivity-basis awakens, and begins attacking everything in sight. The resultant catastrophes have a sacred and secret aspect, however, which is not obvious unless one is focusing on connectivity. The purpose of this serpent is to modulate the general domains of connectivity, such that they are recalibrated from source, or extinguished. By ‘attacking’ the problem, this cognitive organism causes the entire tableau to simplify — which in turn should cause the misbehaving systems to seek their source – and thus recalibrate. If not, well — as any systems analyst knows — the recalcitrant elements are generally recycled. This isn’t a law, but instead a very general aspect offered as a figurative model.

In a living world, the signal that such a dragon is awake could take many forms, for example, when myriads of tokens and machines begin to transform a solar nursery into a techno-industrial graveyard.

With the holophores of Sentience, Time, the unityBeing, and Life we must take great care — for in none of these domains do any human experts exist. Even a group of human experts couldn’t cut the mustard — especially if their expertise was primarily academic in nature. What we must be attentively careful of is authorizing knowledge over contact. Knowledge is frozen, tokenized, and a rePresentation of something it refers to. Understanding, on the other hand is reCognition of communication. We don’t want to throw Knowledge away, but we definitely do not want to be in any kind of position of servitude to it either. The holophores we are born to explore are alive. There is no theory or codicil, no expert or system of knowing that will contain them. We must learn to entitle and empower each other to explore them directly, and to uncredential not ourselves, but the tyrannical and deadly features of systems of knowing that abhor our natures, our world, and our cognitive and human potentials.

As a modern species, we have a long history of problems defining, contacting or metaphying God, and all of the variously opposing (and unified) positions are serious about their schemas in this domain. In our prehistory, it is likely that there was no such token. There certainly wasn’t one so general and essentially nondescript until desacrilization created the potential to name the un-nameable with a potentially objective label.

We are perhaps only now starting to reMember what the Earth means as we struggle to awaken ourselves from the mechanized trend of human and biological silencing we’re undergoing. Science and ‘technology’, appearing heroic, may well prove to indirectly or perhaps even unintentionally comprise a planetary suicide-pill. There is nothing standing in the way of the erasure of the biospheric cogniscium, and it is happening faster than the extinction of animalian life and anciently conserved ecosystems. The time for us to act in unity is now. There will not be a later alike with anything we can model. We must move before the crisis we’ve created crests.

The implications of these holophoric progenitors of definition-value are profound. In the next 20 years, they will likely play a major role in determining whether or not thousands of billions of lifeYears of terrestrial evolution is erased or supported. The tide, at the moment, is vastly leaning toward erased. We are still struggling to understand and embody our animalian relationship with language and symbolic consciousness in a mode that empowers us, as a species and individuals, to survive it. And unbeknownst to us, we are in the earliest stages of this relationship, which we imagine, for some reason, has been going on practically ‘forever’.



:: previous :: next ::



“I also want to mention that the evidence from written texts, personal idols, cylinder seals, and the construction of personal names suggests that every person had a personal god. In Mesopotamia, it was his ili, which in Hebrew is perhaps from the same root as Eli and Elhohim. In Egypt, the personal god which had the same function was called a ka, a word which has been an enigma in Egyptology until now.

In connection with the personal god, it is possible to suggest that a part of our innate bicameral heritage is the modern phenomenon of the ‘imaginary’ playmate. According to my own research as well as other data (Singer & Singer, 1984), it occurs in at least one-third of modern children between 2 and 5 years, and is believed now to involve very real verbal hallucinations. In the rare cases where the imaginary playmate lasts beyond the juvenile period, it too grows up with the child and begins telling him or her what to do in times of stress. It is therefore possible that this is how the personal god started in bicameral times, the imaginary playmate growing up with the person in a society of expectancies that constantly encouraged the child to hear voices and to continue to do so.”

— from Consciousness and the Voices of the Mind, Julian Jaynes, 1985